CharlesHouse
Active Member
Last edited by a moderator:
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (Post-release)
- Thread starter Vivek
- Start date
DuneMuadDib
Sr Member
A number of those are inferred kills rather than overt kills. But I'll concede that Burton's Batman may have a higher bodycount, only because I wasn't specifically counting Batfleck's.
Bale is mostly negligent homicide, Keaton and Affleck are more in manslaughter territory.
Bale is mostly negligent homicide, Keaton and Affleck are more in manslaughter territory.
This is pretty funny.
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/03/ben...iews-of-batman-v-superman-is-so-heartbreaking
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/03/ben...iews-of-batman-v-superman-is-so-heartbreaking
annanake
Sr Member
That's what I get for posting this stuff in the middle of the night lol
I think you right about WW weapons
And the checks to i forgot lex saying, that which still begs the question why did wally not sue someone for money if he never recieved anything ???
But I don't get the WW standing around comment ? Never said that.
Said she was kicking doomsdays ass up and down the isle . I want to know other that theatrics. Why did superman have to be the one to use the spear???
He is allergic to it and WW had been kicking doomsdays ass with her non kryptonite weapon all night .
Makes sense Lex saw something in the ship telling his aliens are coming I guess ?!?
Final take of the film.
Superman= self righteous over confinent dick !
Batman= smart, tough and cool human + best use of a personal fortune ever .
Wonder women= your ass will be kicked !!!
I just wanted WW to ask doomsday why he was so mad when she had the lasso of truth on him .
So he could reply. " Because in have no genstalia !!!!! "
harrisonp
Sr Member
About the passing time writings, it makes me laugh : in TDK Rises (3rd Nolan), we jump without explanation from bruce leaving the pit to bruce in Gotham, and people were either confused or grunting about it. You write it down here to avoid confusion, and people are still grunting about it
I know it seems whiny, I just feel like there has to be a better way than to just slap the words up there on the screen. It shouldn't be too hard to weave that exposition in organically through dialogue, and I'm pretty sure Bruce even says something like "two years ago" to Alfred in regards to the Metropolis battle. I appreciate that it helps with understanding, I just personally don't like it. I felt this way about the text in GOTG too.
glunark
Sr Member
I'm not sure its manslaughter if you strap a bomb to a man's Grayson, then boot him into a manhole.
@annanake the WW comment wasn't indeed directed at you, but Jeyl I think, or whoever said WW was just standing around On the side note, it seems her sword was able to hurt Doomsday efficiently, so all in all there might not have been a need for the K spear, she might just have decapitated him if Supes gave her a bit more time. I think he chose to do it himself because he felt guilty about it, after all Lex created it specifically because of him and innocent people might have died, again, if he did nothing.
@harrisonp I understand, I don't think it's the best way to do it neither actually, I was just thinking out loud. It's another one of these things that didn't bother me, but felt strange. Lots of strangeness in this film !
On the side note, it seems her sword was able to hurt Doomsday efficiently, so all in all there might not have been a need for the K spear, she might just have decapitated him if Supes gave her a bit more time. I think he chose to do it himself because he felt guilty about it, after all Lex created it specifically because of him and innocent people might have died, again, if he did nothing.@harrisonp I understand, I don't think it's the best way to do it neither actually, I was just thinking out loud. It's another one of these things that didn't bother me, but felt strange. Lots of strangeness in this film !
Last edited by a moderator:
harrisonp
Sr Member
CharlesHouse
I just can't see the death of the Waynes as needing to be shown anymore, opinions are opinions in that way. Their death is consistent through most tellings, armed robber, dead on the streets, pearls. It's something that nearly everyone has seen, or at the very least can be Googled. And the thing with "Martha" needing to be meaningful, I thought that was a dumb plot point anyway, so that's why I'm not attached to that moment specifically. The POV shot from Martha looking at the gun was ridiculous to me, and I'm tired of Snyder's "visuals" being praised when the story, which I care most about, felt like a mess to me.
On the point of "fighting too much" I worded that poorly and meant that they fought a little too long for my tastes, not the quantity of their fights. But again that's just personal desires for the characters.
I'm open minded about SS just as I was about BvS, and SS at the very least looks like it may be fun and entertaining even if it isn't Oscar worthy.
I love these characters, that's where my frustration comes from. I so genuinely want WB to succeed with their movie universe, and honestly they may BE succeeding, it just isn't the movie universe I wanted from them I guess.
I'm glad people liked it, and that many LOVED it, I'm just not one of them.
I just can't see the death of the Waynes as needing to be shown anymore, opinions are opinions in that way. Their death is consistent through most tellings, armed robber, dead on the streets, pearls. It's something that nearly everyone has seen, or at the very least can be Googled. And the thing with "Martha" needing to be meaningful, I thought that was a dumb plot point anyway, so that's why I'm not attached to that moment specifically. The POV shot from Martha looking at the gun was ridiculous to me, and I'm tired of Snyder's "visuals" being praised when the story, which I care most about, felt like a mess to me.
On the point of "fighting too much" I worded that poorly and meant that they fought a little too long for my tastes, not the quantity of their fights. But again that's just personal desires for the characters.
I'm open minded about SS just as I was about BvS, and SS at the very least looks like it may be fun and entertaining even if it isn't Oscar worthy.
I love these characters, that's where my frustration comes from. I so genuinely want WB to succeed with their movie universe, and honestly they may BE succeeding, it just isn't the movie universe I wanted from them I guess.
I'm glad people liked it, and that many LOVED it, I'm just not one of them.
Last edited by a moderator:
Snikt
Sr Member
Uh oh, hipster film maker alert. I wasnt insulting anyone. Congrats on going to film school, so by all intents and purposes, it was probably worse for you because you were taught to NOT do any of the things Snyder did. Thats fine if you do, and if you do, Im saying you should get checked, because something is wrong with you. You can recommend all you want, but this is the internet. Are you new? Not only that, but your statement contradicts yourself.
And regarding the Batman killing people, whoever said this Batman is a straight up killer is correct. Did you not see the scene where he straight up bat-murdered the dude in the back of the truck shooting at him? Blasted him with machine guns. And yeah, in the nolan verse there was some collateral damage. In another thread, someone had said if you have to explain the difference, you dont understand. Like how Zack Snyder said "whats wrong with killing people, Star Wars probably killed billions of people and nobody is saying anything about that". Its ridiculous. Yeah, it just boils down to a movie, so whatever, but still. Who knows how long its going to take for someone who knows/cares about the characters to remake this cinematic piece of trash.
Clearly CharlesHouse is a WB employee, or friend of Snyder.
Last edited:
harrisonp
Sr Member
I think I was most taken aback by him latching the cable onto that car during the chase and just dragging those dudes behind him. They had to be smoothies by the time he unhooks the cable, and I thought that whole chase was really out of character. Like you said, other Batman fiction has toed the line, but multiple times in non-Knightmare scenes he uses lethal force that is really jarring to me, especially for a seasoned and well trained Batman. I said it above, but I don't think a pure crazy Miller Batman was what this movie needed.
CharlesHouse
Active Member
Snikt
Sr Member
Exactly. Its a prime example of Snyder not understanding the characters. Look how bad MOS turned out, and WB was like "ok try your luck with batman, he makes money" but the studio doesnt realize the reason the Nolan films did well was not only he is a good director, but he CARED and UNDERSTOOD the characters. Respect the material! I thought the same thing, "those dudes are going to look like raw hamburger when they open those doors". It was ridiculous. A buddy and I scoffed when we saw that. Couldnt agree more. That crazy batman of Frank Millers belongs in the 80's. And, everyone seems to forget, that isnt a story in continuity... So its easy for Batman to go off the rails in a one shot comic. And it contradicts everything the Batman in BvS is supposed to be mad at Superman about!
- - - Updated - - -
Not only that, but it would still be sitting there, in tact? For 18 months? The rest of the world wouldnt have any impact on that at all, Superman wouldnt have taken that to the arctic, or put it on the moon or something? Metropolis got rebuilt in a year, and they happen to be across the bay from Gotham, a cesspool compared to Metropolis? I could go on and on about this movie. I should probably stop.
DuneMuadDib
Sr Member
Gotham being that close to Metropolis is consistent with the comics though, where at times they have in fact been separated by a bay. Now Metropolis in Smallville being a few hours drive and in Kansas was ridiculous.
And really, a cesspool of a city next to a gem of one isn't a stretch at all.
And really, a cesspool of a city next to a gem of one isn't a stretch at all.
glunark
Sr Member
I know I havnt seen the film yet, something I hope to rectify tomorrow, but in terms of Batman, we have never seen Batman in this stage of his career before, the Burton Schumacher Batman killed in each of the movies, but even the last one he had had only been Batman for around ten years or so, with Nolan its even worse, he was Batman for about a year, went into seclusion, then come back years later and died/faked his own death.
Weather the film is bad or not, the "this isn't the batman we know" argument is a mute point, when dealing with a man who has been Batman for more than 20 years, something unseen in any film.
Weather the film is bad or not, the "this isn't the batman we know" argument is a mute point, when dealing with a man who has been Batman for more than 20 years, something unseen in any film.
OK, just read an interview with Zack Snyder explaining why Batman kills. First I have no dog in this fight, you want him to kill, then have him kill, whatever. What I do have issue with is Zack Snyders rationale. He states that he was lifting whole ideas from Frank Millers Batman The Dark Knight Returns and Frank Miller had Batman killing all the time! No he did not. In the Dark Knight Returns Batman kills NO ONE! Not even the Joker, he did break the Jokers neck but would not take it further and kill him. (side note, the Joker twists his own neck and finishes himself off letting Batman take the blame for his death) Zack Snyder even references a scene with Batman breaking down a wall, grabbing a machine gun and shooting the man between the eyes. That did not happen, he shot 1 time at the man and purposely missed him but scared him enough to drop a kidnapped child.
Did Zack Snyder even READ the comic he took parts from or did he just look at the pretty colors?! Like I said I have no problem if Batman kills or doesn't kill but I am curious as to why Zack Snyder will hold up comics by Frank Miller showing that Batman kills when in said comics Batman does NOT kill. If a director wants to go a different direction with a character fine, then do it but don't use a reference to point at and vindicate why you did something when the reference you use does not support your argument. Sheesh, this guy was paid how much to make this movie?!
Did Zack Snyder even READ the comic he took parts from or did he just look at the pretty colors?! Like I said I have no problem if Batman kills or doesn't kill but I am curious as to why Zack Snyder will hold up comics by Frank Miller showing that Batman kills when in said comics Batman does NOT kill. If a director wants to go a different direction with a character fine, then do it but don't use a reference to point at and vindicate why you did something when the reference you use does not support your argument. Sheesh, this guy was paid how much to make this movie?!
DuneMuadDib
Sr Member
The term is "moot point." It also doesn't mean what people think it means, but that's another matter.
And yes, we have seen Batman at this point in his career before but not in film. Batman Beyond starts with an aged Batman hanging up the cowl just because he had to pick up a gun to keep himself alive. Not even firing it, just wielding it. Prior to the New 52 reboot Batman in the comics had been operating for about 13-15 years and was not in any way a killer. Kingdom Come featured an aged Batman who was fighting to prevent other heroes killing.
Really the only precedent for an aged Batman being fatally violent is Frank Miller's work. Miller's vision for who Batman is isn't consistent with the mainstream characterization of Batman. Snyder's take on Batman is clearly influenced heavily by Miller's though, so at least it's consistent with that.
And yes, we have seen Batman at this point in his career before but not in film. Batman Beyond starts with an aged Batman hanging up the cowl just because he had to pick up a gun to keep himself alive. Not even firing it, just wielding it. Prior to the New 52 reboot Batman in the comics had been operating for about 13-15 years and was not in any way a killer. Kingdom Come featured an aged Batman who was fighting to prevent other heroes killing.
Really the only precedent for an aged Batman being fatally violent is Frank Miller's work. Miller's vision for who Batman is isn't consistent with the mainstream characterization of Batman. Snyder's take on Batman is clearly influenced heavily by Miller's though, so at least it's consistent with that.
Pretty disturbing, no clue. And just shows he didn't care. And I like his 300 and Watchmen.
The Batman does not kill because it makes for a great character!
A street thug getting a good dose from him may wish they were dead at times. LOL
Gordon would never tolerate and team up with someone like the Punisher also.
The Batman gets close to the edge but does not fall into the abyss.
Once he starts killing, it's over. There is no Batman anymore.
harrisonp
Sr Member
Completely deflates any tension that they could have in an "Under the Hood" adaptation too. If Batman has killed before, yet wont kill the Joker even after he killed Jason, then I hope Red Hood puts one between Batman's eyes.
Similar threads
